QTR-Quadtone RIP

Who is using QTR with K7 Piezzotone, and how is it working for you.

John

Hi John,

I have an Epson 2200 loaded with the Piezography K7 inset.  I also
have an Epson R2400 loaded with Epson's K3 inset.  As a result, I've
been able to compare both inksets using the same image and paper. 
I've also used the MIS Ultratone inks in the 2200.  Overall, the
R2400/K3 does a great job in BW mode but the Piezography K7 does give
somewhat smoother tonal transitions.  The Piezography K7 inkset is
also superior to the MIS Ultratone inks since the K7 inks do not clog
the printer, whereas the MIS inks frequently did.    

Regarding the quality of the K7 inks compared to the Epson R2400 BW
mode prints, I've noticed the following:  The R2400/K3 prints are
excellent.  There is no color cast and it is difficult to tell the
difference between a BW image printed using the R2400/K3 (matt black
in this case) vs. the 2200/K7.  However, close inspection of images
with fine tonal gradations reveal that the 2200/K7 print is noticeably
superior in its ability to generate very smooth and soft tonal
transitions.  This is not to say that the 2400/K3 transitions were not
excellent.  Instead, it is to say that the 2200/K7 prints were
superior even to the excellent 2400/K3 prints.  To my eye, the
differences are only noticeable in the transitions in the mid to high
tones.  They are fine but are not hard to see.  The shadows looked
pretty much the same to me.  The tone produced by the K7 inkset
closely matches what I would call truly neutral gray.  It also looks
very close to neutral gray produced by the R2400/K3 inks.  All images
were printed on Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) paper.  The R2400 prints
were made with Epson's curves for EEM and the BW driver.  The 2200
prints were made with Quad tone RIP and the curves for EEM.  Attempts
to fiddle with the images in Photoshop to get the 2400/K3 print to the
level of the 2200 print were not successful.  There was always a bit
of a difference.  

The test described above was the only one I've done so far, and it was
all with visual inspection.  Perhaps making my own curves for the 2400
and tweaking them will bring those prints to the same smoothness as
the 2200/K7 prints.  Of course, the same tweaking might also improve
the 2200/K7 prints to a quality beyond where they are now.

So, the K7 inset produces outstanding results.  It compares favorably
and is slightly superior to the 2400/K3 BW mode prints and to prints
using MIS Ultratone inks in the 2200.  Importantly, the K7 insets have
never once clogged the printer.  Unfortunately, I cannot say the same
for the MIS inks.  

With all of that said, my view is that the R2400/K3 prints and the
2200/K7 prints are so close in quality that it will not be worth it
for most R2400 owners to consider the K7 inkset.  My original plan was
to buy the 2400 and then sell the 2200.  But I've decided to keep both
only because it lets me use the R2400 for color and glossy prints and
the 2200 for matte BW and because I'm perhaps a bit too picky about BW
image quality.

Finally, please note a recent post by me regarding problems with QTR
for Windows and the Epson 2200 printer.  It does not address image
quality, but instead a problem with the program's ability to
communicate with or control the printer.   


Best,

Tony

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

> Who is using QTR with K7 Piezzotone, and how is it working for you.
> 
> John

Hi Tony,

Thank you for the details of your test results.

Is anyone using K7 in the 4000 or larger machines yet?

What you experienced was exactly what I would expect from what I have
read up until now. Personally I haven't had my hands on either inkset
yet and look forward to working with both soon.

From what Roy mentioned about the K7 inkset, I would expect the
slightly more subtle tonal transitions to be the strong point along
with an easy to achieve purely consistent color tone, which is
someting in itself. 

I imagine that what one might consider a very subtle and almost
neglegable difference in tonal transition in a small print could
translate into significant luminance delicacy in a large print from a
great drum scan at say 30"x40" or so. I don't know. I have seen
certain prints for instance done with Epson K2 and QTR that look
indistinguishable from Piezzotone with one type image and another
where super delicate highlights predominate can show major differences
in the rendition of that part of the upper highlight scale, while
maintaining texture up there.

Have you tried QTR with the K3 inkset? Is it available for those
printers yet? I would expect a tonal improvement with a rip on both of
these inksets, especially if the individual printers are carefully
linearized with a spectrometer.

What about DMAX? I was concerned about that when I first received the
K7 sample print but have heard since then that DMax is about that same
as what we've been experienceing in the past. I hope so. If so this is
going to be fun.

It is going to be an interesting year for monochrome and watching how
all this shakes out. 

John 




--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "tony_morielli"
<tony_morielli@y...> wrote:
> 
> Hi John,
> 
> I have an Epson 2200 loaded with the Piezography K7 inset.  I also
> have an Epson R2400 loaded with Epson's K3 inset.  As a result, I've
> been able to compare both inksets using the same image and paper. 
> I've also used the MIS Ultratone inks in the 2200.  Overall, the
> R2400/K3 does a great job in BW mode but the Piezography K7 does give
> somewhat smoother tonal transitions.  The Piezography K7 inkset is
> also superior to the MIS Ultratone inks since the K7 inks do not clog
> the printer, whereas the MIS inks frequently did.    
> 
> Regarding the quality of the K7 inks compared to the Epson R2400 BW
> mode prints, I've noticed the following:  The R2400/K3 prints are
> excellent.  There is no color cast and it is difficult to tell the
> difference between a BW image printed using the R2400/K3 (matt black
> in this case) vs. the 2200/K7.  However, close inspection of images
> with fine tonal gradations reveal that the 2200/K7 print is noticeably
> superior in its ability to generate very smooth and soft tonal
> transitions.  This is not to say that the 2400/K3 transitions were not
> excellent.  Instead, it is to say that the 2200/K7 prints were
> superior even to the excellent 2400/K3 prints.  To my eye, the
> differences are only noticeable in the transitions in the mid to high
> tones.  They are fine but are not hard to see.  The shadows looked
> pretty much the same to me.  The tone produced by the K7 inkset
> closely matches what I would call truly neutral gray.  It also looks
> very close to neutral gray produced by the R2400/K3 inks.  All images
> were printed on Epson Enhanced Matte (EEM) paper.  The R2400 prints
> were made with Epson's curves for EEM and the BW driver.  The 2200
> prints were made with Quad tone RIP and the curves for EEM.  Attempts
> to fiddle with the images in Photoshop to get the 2400/K3 print to the
> level of the 2200 print were not successful.  There was always a bit
> of a difference.  
> 
> The test described above was the only one I've done so far, and it was
> all with visual inspection.  Perhaps making my own curves for the 2400
> and tweaking them will bring those prints to the same smoothness as
> the 2200/K7 prints.  Of course, the same tweaking might also improve
> the 2200/K7 prints to a quality beyond where they are now.
> 
> So, the K7 inset produces outstanding results.  It compares favorably
> and is slightly superior to the 2400/K3 BW mode prints and to prints
> using MIS Ultratone inks in the 2200.  Importantly, the K7 insets have
> never once clogged the printer.  Unfortunately, I cannot say the same
> for the MIS inks.  
> 
> With all of that said, my view is that the R2400/K3 prints and the
> 2200/K7 prints are so close in quality that it will not be worth it
> for most R2400 owners to consider the K7 inkset.  My original plan was
> to buy the 2400 and then sell the 2200.  But I've decided to keep both
> only because it lets me use the R2400 for color and glossy prints and
> the 2200 for matte BW and because I'm perhaps a bit too picky about BW
> image quality.
> 
> Finally, please note a recent post by me regarding problems with QTR
> for Windows and the Epson 2200 printer.  It does not address image
> quality, but instead a problem with the program's ability to
> communicate with or control the printer.   
> 
> 
> Best,
> 
> Tony
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...>
wrote:

> > Who is using QTR with K7 Piezzotone, and how is it working for you.
> > 
> > John

I've used Cone's inks from nearly the beginning and they've always
been first rate. The K7 shows two noticeable improvements that haven't
been mentioned here yet, I think.

One, on most of the printers I use (1160, 3000, 7000) the Cone Quad
tone inksets would always show visible dots at some point in the scale
from black to white, usually somewhere in the 15-25% range.Usually it
was a small range (18-22% for example)> If an image didn't have any of
this particular tone in it then the print would truly be dotless. It
was rarely a problem, but there were images that suffered from visible
dots. And by this I mean that close inspection of an image (from 8
inches away) would allow one to see the dots, usually after looking
for a while. Generally this did not detract from the image at "normal"
viewing distances, but a fly in the ointment none the less. The new
inks are truly dotless throughout the scale, and inspection through a
loupe shows what, to my eye, looks like a film grain pattern and not a
 dot matrix. This is a big improvement.

Two, the detail in images is much sharper with this inkset. A print
from the same image at the same size shows greater fine detail,
through a loupe. I shoot in the city, and street signs, window grills,
bricks and mortar all are sharper when printed with the K7 inkset.
It's not a huge difference, but then many of us would contact print
negatives in the old days in order to achieve a sharper and more three
dimensional quality to our images. Not a huge improvement, but
substantial.

I am very happy with the 2200 and the K7's and I'm looking forward to
putting these inks into my 7000 when that opportunity is available.

Thanks Mark,

Sounds good. So you have no complaints about the deepest black density
with K7? I get the feeling this is going to be an excellent inkset for
use with QTR and the 7000. However we can probably get much better
tonal seperation with a good custom linearization though. These older
printers vary quite a bit. Should be fun. We'll also be able to fill
our own carts with bulk ink. Now that is something Epson will never
give us!

John




--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "Mark Stracke" <markastracke@y...>
wrote:

> I've used Cone's inks from nearly the beginning and they've always
> been first rate. The K7 shows two noticeable improvements that haven't
> been mentioned here yet, I think.
> 
> One, on most of the printers I use (1160, 3000, 7000) the Cone Quad
> tone inksets would always show visible dots at some point in the scale
> from black to white, usually somewhere in the 15-25% range.Usually it
> was a small range (18-22% for example)> If an image didn't have any of
> this particular tone in it then the print would truly be dotless. It
> was rarely a problem, but there were images that suffered from visible
> dots. And by this I mean that close inspection of an image (from 8
> inches away) would allow one to see the dots, usually after looking
> for a while. Generally this did not detract from the image at "normal"
> viewing distances, but a fly in the ointment none the less. The new
> inks are truly dotless throughout the scale, and inspection through a
> loupe shows what, to my eye, looks like a film grain pattern and not a
>  dot matrix. This is a big improvement.
> 
> Two, the detail in images is much sharper with this inkset. A print
> from the same image at the same size shows greater fine detail,
> through a loupe. I shoot in the city, and street signs, window grills,
> bricks and mortar all are sharper when printed with the K7 inkset.
> It's not a huge difference, but then many of us would contact print
> negatives in the old days in order to achieve a sharper and more three
> dimensional quality to our images. Not a huge improvement, but
> substantial.
> 
> I am very happy with the 2200 and the K7's and I'm looking forward to
> putting these inks into my 7000 when that opportunity is available.

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> Thanks Mark,
> 
> Sounds good. So you have no complaints about the deepest black density
> with K7? 

  I don't have any complaints. I can't predict what a one would think
if the deepest possible black is the first and foremost consideration
however. The look is very close to Cone's Portfolio Black, if that helps.

I've been using the K7 inkset with my 4000 and both QTR and IJC/OPM and have had 
excellent results.  Previously I was using QTR and IJC/OPM with the UC inks and while they 
gave great results I knew I could do better with more tones.  The tonal gradations with K7 
are beautiful to behold.  The Dmax is very good.  All in all I'm very happy with the inks 
AND the lack of clogging.

Angelo


--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:

> Thanks Mark,
> 
> Sounds good. So you have no complaints about the deepest black density
> with K7? I get the feeling this is going to be an excellent inkset for
> use with QTR and the 7000. However we can probably get much better
> tonal seperation with a good custom linearization though. These older
> printers vary quite a bit. Should be fun. We'll also be able to fill
> our own carts with bulk ink. Now that is something Epson will never
> give us!
> 
> John
> 
> 
> 
>

Good deal. I'm excited.

I never used the PizzT Portfolio Black. The Museum Black was just fine
with my scans. 

I am VERY glad to hear that the consistency of these new inks allows
for a clog free workflow. That is an improvement in and of itself.

John




--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "acmdude" <acmdude@b...> wrote:
> I've been using the K7 inkset with my 4000 and both QTR and IJC/OPM
and have had 
> excellent results.  Previously I was using QTR and IJC/OPM with the
UC inks and while they 
> gave great results I knew I could do better with more tones.  The
tonal gradations with K7 
> are beautiful to behold.  The Dmax is very good.  All in all I'm
very happy with the inks 
> AND the lack of clogging.
> 
> Angelo
> 
> 
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...>
wrote:

> > Thanks Mark,
> > 
> > Sounds good. So you have no complaints about the deepest black density
> > with K7? I get the feeling this is going to be an excellent inkset for
> > use with QTR and the 7000. However we can probably get much better
> > tonal seperation with a good custom linearization though. These older
> > printers vary quite a bit. Should be fun. We'll also be able to fill
> > our own carts with bulk ink. Now that is something Epson will never
> > give us!
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > 
> > 
> >

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> Who is using QTR with K7 Piezzotone, and how is it working for you.
> 
> John
I've just joined the group and the quadtone 2200 society and I've
posted messages as to my problem getting my blacks.  They print as if
it's out of gambit, that same gray that shows up when you check it
with Photoshop.  It looks like a negative version.  Did you have any
such issue?  Also, if I have Photoshop open and am using sheet feed,
it won't feed unless I close Photoshop...?

I have no idea what you are talking about. You can't have out of gamut
colors because there aren't any colors in that inkset, they are all
monochrome. You should be printing out of grey gamma 2.2 as a print
space right? If you are having  a posterization occur that is a
different issue. I would check to make sure you are getting a good
nozzle check. If not, that is your problem.

John



--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "frearl1" <frearl1@y...> wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...>
wrote:

> > Who is using QTR with K7 Piezzotone, and how is it working for you.
> > 
> > John
> I've just joined the group and the quadtone 2200 society and I've
> posted messages as to my problem getting my blacks.  They print as if
> it's out of gambit, that same gray that shows up when you check it
> with Photoshop.  It looks like a negative version.  Did you have any
> such issue?  Also, if I have Photoshop open and am using sheet feed,
> it won't feed unless I close Photoshop...?

--- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "frearl1" <frearl1@y...> wrote:
> --- In QuadtoneRIP@yahoogroups.com, "john dean" <deanwork2003@y...> wrote:
> > Who is using QTR with K7 Piezzotone, and how is it working for you.
> > 
> > John
> I've just joined the group and the quadtone 2200 society and I've
> posted messages as to my problem getting my blacks.  They print as if
> it's out of gambit, that same gray that shows up when you check it
> with Photoshop.  It looks like a negative version.  Did you have any
> such issue?  Also, if I have Photoshop open and am using sheet feed,
> it won't feed unless I close Photoshop...?

Are you using the K7 profiles?  Sounds a little like the UltraChrome
profiles being used with the K7 inks.

Roy